Tweet
THE HISTORIAN AND THE POLITBURO
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/28/134977/
NOVEMBER 28, 2012 13:37
The textbook of the Armenian history for universities expresses
the current government's position presenting the events of March 1,
2008, and in that sense, naturally, it cannot aspire after laurels for
accuracy. I wouldn't even call it the official position, because there
are ridiculous, I would even say, irresponsible claims in the textbook
that cannot be found in any official document, in the criminal case
in particular. For example, "Firearms were used by both sides during
the clashes, as a result of which 10 people died." One should probably
have some substantial evidence that the opposition or the protesters
used firearms to record it as a historical fact, but there is no
such evidence. The whole text of the book about the events of March 1
testifies to the fact that both Edik Minasyan and all "contributors"
were not conscientious and paid tribute to the Soviet conformism.
However, I am more interested in another issue - is there such a
thing as "historical truth." And even if there is, can it exist,
when the event took place only 4 years and 6 months ago, and all the
interested parties are still engaged in politics, and as we all know,
that creates very unstable situations. If this book had been written
by the Armenian National Congress (ANC) member, he would have written,
for example, that Levon Ter-Petrossian's supporters claimed that the
bodyguards of famous oligarchs, including those of Gagik Tsarukyan,
participated in the slaughter of March 1. Or would he have erased that
sentence "urged" by the ANC politburo today? And tomorrow, after a
"change of situation," the same lines would have most probably been
written again. If the historian should be guided by an order of some
"politburo," can he hand over accurate information to the generations
to come?
However, let me try to complicate the issue further and honestly
answer the following question - and if I had been instructed to write
that part of the history book, would I have been able to disregard my
own emotions? For example, the fact that Robert Kocharyan closed A1+,
or that from March 1 to 20 of the same year, he banned the work of all
normal news agencies. The one who writes history is a human being, and
if he went through that period of time he writes about one way or the
other, he by no means can avoid putting his emotions into the writing.
I think the important thing is that everyone talks on his behalf and
not on behalf of his "politburo" or political team. Otherwise, we will
have what we have in the notorious textbook of the Armenian history.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
From: A. Papazian
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/28/134977/
NOVEMBER 28, 2012 13:37
The textbook of the Armenian history for universities expresses
the current government's position presenting the events of March 1,
2008, and in that sense, naturally, it cannot aspire after laurels for
accuracy. I wouldn't even call it the official position, because there
are ridiculous, I would even say, irresponsible claims in the textbook
that cannot be found in any official document, in the criminal case
in particular. For example, "Firearms were used by both sides during
the clashes, as a result of which 10 people died." One should probably
have some substantial evidence that the opposition or the protesters
used firearms to record it as a historical fact, but there is no
such evidence. The whole text of the book about the events of March 1
testifies to the fact that both Edik Minasyan and all "contributors"
were not conscientious and paid tribute to the Soviet conformism.
However, I am more interested in another issue - is there such a
thing as "historical truth." And even if there is, can it exist,
when the event took place only 4 years and 6 months ago, and all the
interested parties are still engaged in politics, and as we all know,
that creates very unstable situations. If this book had been written
by the Armenian National Congress (ANC) member, he would have written,
for example, that Levon Ter-Petrossian's supporters claimed that the
bodyguards of famous oligarchs, including those of Gagik Tsarukyan,
participated in the slaughter of March 1. Or would he have erased that
sentence "urged" by the ANC politburo today? And tomorrow, after a
"change of situation," the same lines would have most probably been
written again. If the historian should be guided by an order of some
"politburo," can he hand over accurate information to the generations
to come?
However, let me try to complicate the issue further and honestly
answer the following question - and if I had been instructed to write
that part of the history book, would I have been able to disregard my
own emotions? For example, the fact that Robert Kocharyan closed A1+,
or that from March 1 to 20 of the same year, he banned the work of all
normal news agencies. The one who writes history is a human being, and
if he went through that period of time he writes about one way or the
other, he by no means can avoid putting his emotions into the writing.
I think the important thing is that everyone talks on his behalf and
not on behalf of his "politburo" or political team. Otherwise, we will
have what we have in the notorious textbook of the Armenian history.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
From: A. Papazian